Which is also what makes most of the complaints about "violating copyright" dodgy at best. It will be hard to prove in a courtroom when the "copy" of your work is factually different from the original, given that you can't register/copyright a style. If these AI companies are going to lose the legal battle, it will be all about the jury questioning their right to access the "training data" and not about the results being something "stolen".
Speaking with all the experience from watching a single youtube video essay, there seems to be precedence for copyrighting a style. One of the most popular cases was the battle between Pharrell Williams' "Blurred Lines" and Marvin Gayes' "Got to Give It Up," where Blurred Lines was accused and found guilty of of copying the style or feel of Got to Give It Up, even though the [chords, rhythm, etc] weren't the same.
I have absolutely no idea how/if this applies to the art world, or if the only difference is that the music industry is overwhelmingly more regulated by big corporations with vast monetary incentives to protect their copyrights and access to lawyers...
Originally Posted by Tuco
There's also the other side of the coin, which is that even conceding that AI companies will have to compensate artists, it's hard to imagine the "quantification" of that compensation being anything but pitiful. If your "stolen work" amounts to nothing more than one part in a billion of a dataset used for training the software, what sort of compensation per use should you really expect?
Even if an AI company only has to pay each artist a fraction of a cent, that times X-billion images can add up to large sums. Correspondingly, fractions of a cent paid to an artist multiplied by "Y images produced by all AI companies" can also add up.
For your other questions, I suppose in general my response is "human effort to create art should be appropriately compensated, and mass-produced AI images require ~no human artistic effort (obviously the programmers of the AI put in work)" Thus, e.g., a fan artist should be given much more leeway than a company using an AI art generator.
Even if an AI company only has to pay each artist a fraction of a cent, that times X-billion images can add up to large sums. Correspondingly, fractions of a cent paid to an artist multiplied by "Y images produced by all AI companies" can also add up.
Just because it "adds up" that doesn't make the logistic realistically viable.
Party control in Baldur's Gate 3 is a complete mess that begs to be addressed. SAY NO TO THE TOILET CHAIN
I don't know, all my alarms just go off when someone tells me AI can do 'art'. To my knowleadge AI, at this stage, doesn't know what a cat is when you ask for a drawing of a cat.
I’m no expert in aesthetics, but I do know that one of the big bones of contention in that subject is how much, if anything, authorial intent has to do with something being art. If authorial intent isn’t essential then there doesn’t seem any in principle reason why AIs shouldn’t create art, but if it is then unless and until AI develops the ability to have intentions, humans might be able to use AI as a tool to create art but AI wouldn’t be able to create art spontaneously.
The examples of AI art I’m aware of to date fit more into the tool-for-artists mould, where someone has specified elements of the images and then selected the one(s) that they think could be presented as art from a bunch of less successful images. If found objects can be art because of the intent of the artist in selecting and presenting them, then I’d see no reason why images created by AIs couldn’t also be, but I also wouldn’t see this process as proving AI could itself create art.
But I’m sure there are plenty of developments on this front that I’m not aware of, and possibly examples that are more compellingly of AI creating art from scratch.
"You may call it 'nonsense' if you like, but I've heard nonsense, compared with which that would be as sensible as a dictionary!"
The technology isn't there yet, and the current writing quality is so poor that it would stand out harshly against the human written material. But it will definitely be a killer feature in Baldur's Gate 5.
I don't know, all my alarms just go off when someone tells me AI can do 'art'. To my knowleadge AI, at this stage, doesn't know what a cat is when you ask for a drawing of a cat.
I’m no expert in aesthetics, but I do know that one of the big bones of contention in that subject is how much, if anything, authorial intent has to do with something being art. If authorial intent isn’t essential then there doesn’t seem any in principle reason why AIs shouldn’t create art, but if it is then unless and until AI develops the ability to have intentions, humans might be able to use AI as a tool to create art but AI wouldn’t be able to create art spontaneously.
The examples of AI art I’m aware of to date fit more into the tool-for-artists mould, where someone has specified elements of the images and then selected the one(s) that they think could be presented as art from a bunch of less successful images. If found objects can be art because of the intent of the artist in selecting and presenting them, then I’d see no reason why images created by AIs couldn’t also be, but I also wouldn’t see this process as proving AI could itself create art.
But I’m sure there are plenty of developments on this front that I’m not aware of, and possibly examples that are more compellingly of AI creating art from scratch.
The big problem of arguing this angle is that at the end of the day what constitutes "actual, genuine, real, human art" is relevant only for a minuscule fraction of the people who will make use of these tools. And it will matter less and less as they will improve over time and people will need to be warned upfront about what's genuine and what not.
A lot of people will be perfectly fine with "Sure, let's say this isn't real art. Still serves perfectly well any purpose I needed this image for".
Case in point: I regularly organize boxing events and I have a friend of mine, a good artist, often working on my posters for any fight night. Being a close friend who trains at my gym he also refuses to ask for or accept any compensation, but the downside is that I can't really pressure him to doing me the favor at will when I'm on a tight deadline. It's also a very low profit activity (it's amateur boxing, we are lucky when we get few hundred euros above breaking even and sometimes we closed the night with a red balance), so "hiring a well paid professional artist" to do the job isn't even a viable option for me. Most other gyms/boxing clubs in our region don't even bother with this stuff and just slap some poorly photoshopped pictures of their athletes on the poster and call it a day. "Artsy vintage posters" are a bit of our distinctive mark in this area.
Do you think the day something like Midjourney will get good enough at doing depictions of athletes in action I will have any sort of moral reservation about "using art that is not genuine"? I won't give a flying fuck, because it's some throw-away stuff that will need to be quickly replaced a week or two later and no one will ever remember the day after the event. And I'll be glad to be able to get by without pestering a friend every two weeks or so, if I can help it.
Party control in Baldur's Gate 3 is a complete mess that begs to be addressed. SAY NO TO THE TOILET CHAIN
I mean, there's room for a thought experiment here:
How much of any given individual's ideas are truly original? All the words we use and their meanings were picked up from someone else, and we are just learning to mash and combine them together in different ways. All the ways to portray imagery we either get from our senses or from someone else expressing their senses. Yes, artificial intelligence is scraping together an image, or a story, or audio, from combing the internet and distributing it across its network, but is that not what we do too? Everything you can possibly think can be broken down into composite parts that you got from somewhere else, rather than creating yourself. Are we not working from the dataset of conscious experience?
Remember the human (This is a forum for a video game):
I’m no expert in aesthetics, but I do know that one of the big bones of contention in that subject is how much, if anything, authorial intent has to do with something being art. If authorial intent isn’t essential then there doesn’t seem any in principle reason why AIs shouldn’t create art, but if it is then unless and until AI develops the ability to have intentions, humans might be able to use AI as a tool to create art but AI wouldn’t be able to create art spontaneously.
The big problem of arguing this angle is that at the end of the day what constitutes "actual, genuine, real, human art" is relevant only for a minuscule fraction of the people who will make use of these tools. And it will matter less and less as they will improve over time and people will need to be warned upfront about what's genuine and what not.
A lot of people will be perfectly fine with "Sure, let's say this isn't real art. Still serves perfectly well any purpose I needed this image for".
Sure, folk might often just want a picture and not care whether it’s art, and use AI for that purpose. But the specific suggestion I was discussing there was that AI can create art, and I don’t see why the fact many people may not care about the answer is a “big problem” for the validity of any argument one way or the other. Though I guess it is an argument for the discussion not being of wide interest and relevance, outside of folks like me who get their kicks from musing over this kind of stuff . So given the the topic of the thread isn’t the nature of art and whether AI can create it, I will at least not take us further off piste into that topic here.
"You may call it 'nonsense' if you like, but I've heard nonsense, compared with which that would be as sensible as a dictionary!"
Can't wait for a full 3D game that is 100% made by an AI.
We know AI can code simple programs. We know it can create art. We know it can create audio. Eventually, an AI will be able to code its own game engine, make its own voice acting, and build its own levels. It's going to be terrible the first few times, but I can't wait to see what it's like.
Correction: it can't 'create' art. It mashes together whatever it can find on the internet. Same for voice acting. AI can't made anything without a solid human base, so it will never be able to do a 100% original anything.
With that line of thinking, neither can humans. no matter how original a piece of art is, it is just cobbled together from that individuals impressions.
With that line of thinking, neither can humans. no matter how original a piece of art is, it is just cobbled together from that individuals impressions.
Actually it can, if you consider human art to have divine qualities like the ancient greeks did with muses.
If you see any ancient Greeks, ask them what they think of A.I. I'd be interested in their take.
“According to Homer, Hephaestus built automatons of metal to work for him or others. This included … servant "handmaidens wrought of gold in the semblance of living maids", in them was "understanding in their hearts, and speech and strength"”
"You may call it 'nonsense' if you like, but I've heard nonsense, compared with which that would be as sensible as a dictionary!"
With that line of thinking, neither can humans. no matter how original a piece of art is, it is just cobbled together from that individuals impressions.
Actually it can, if you consider human art to have divine qualities like the ancient greeks did with muses.
Yes but luckily we live in a scientific society so you probably wouldn't consider that. But even if you did, you have to consider the fact that anything you call divine is in itself something that is made up of someones imagination, an imagination that has been inspired by the events and experiences of that person/group of people.
Yes but luckily we live in a scientific society so you probably wouldn't consider that. But even if you did, you have to consider the fact that anything you call divine is in itself something that is made up of someones imagination, an imagination that has been inspired by the events and experiences of that person/group of people.
There is an argument to be made for a religious society over a scientific one depending on how it is handled, and whether it is based on imagination or spiritual stuff. Will I start this discussion here? Eeh, I prefer to talk about the silly video game instead.
There is an argument to be made for a religious society over a scientific one depending on how it is handled, and whether it is based on imagination or spiritual stuff. Will I start this discussion here? Eeh, I prefer to talk about the silly video game instead.
Yep, definitely no one should have that discussion here, and should instead talk about the game, or at least topics that are tangentially connected to it and/or not liable to end in tears!
"You may call it 'nonsense' if you like, but I've heard nonsense, compared with which that would be as sensible as a dictionary!"
I did have an idea for Ai,. It could potentially be used to improve character dialogue. We could eventually gave a system where based on the dialogue choices a player makes, AI can tailor character animation to better physically represent the character a player is making. It could even choose certain environmental barks as well. Of course it would be choosing from preset lists and parameters, but that would still be really cool.
With that line of thinking, neither can humans. no matter how original a piece of art is, it is just cobbled together from that individuals impressions.
Actually it can, if you consider human art to have divine qualities like the ancient greeks did with muses.
Yes but luckily we live in a scientific society so you probably wouldn't consider that.
The Ancient Greeks considered their society the height of reason and science too.
Remember the human (This is a forum for a video game):
. So given the the topic of the thread isn’t the nature of art and whether AI can create it, I will at least not take us further off piste into that topic here.
Indeed, when it comes to weird fetishes it seems the ancient Greeks had many of them covered thousands of years ago!